The following disclosure relates generally to roof inspection systems and methods of using roof inspection systems.
The tasks of climbing a ladder and inspecting a roof, on foot, are inherently dangerous. Every year, thousands of people are injured or killed in falls from a ladder or off a roof.
Roofs often include a variety of shapes, features and obstacles. For example, a roof may have multiple peaks and valleys, a high slope or pitch, and may include numerous obstacles such as chimneys, vents, skylights, rain gutters, power lines, roof-mounted equipment, natural debris, and other objects. In addition to the danger presented by these features, a roof inspector might not inspect areas of the roof that are difficult or dangerous. Weather conditions can make the task more dangerous and/or delay the inspection. Walking on a roof can damage the surface.
From roofing contractors to insurance company personnel, workers in a variety of endeavors must inspect a roof as part of their job duties and responsibilities. Proper roof inspection techniques—especially safety precautions—require extensive training, physical endurance, and years of practice developing the necessary skills. Climbing and working safely on a roof requires large ladders, ropes, safety harnesses, and often a large truck to haul the equipment to the site. Providing a second person on site for assistance and safety adds cost to the process, without adding to the reliability of the final report.
The reliability of a roof inspection and analysis is limited by the subjective experience and motives of the roof inspector, who is often called upon to evaluate whether a roof should be repaired or replaced by an insurance provider. For example, a good roof inspector should be able to recognize and distinguish hail damage (often covered by insurance) and minor heat blistering (not covered). Roof inspectors rely on their experience and knowledge of the causes of various kinds of roof damage, using subjective methods to make a damage assessment and a recommendation to the insurer. The reliability of the roof assessment depends on the education, training, and field experience of the particular roof inspector who performed the work.
Subjective assessments are also of limited value because of the risk of bias in the judgment of the roof inspector. Bias against the roof owner can be present when the inspector works for an insurance company that has a financial interest in denying a damage claim. Bias in favor of the roof owner can be present when the inspector works for a roofing company or other interest that may profit from reporting that the roof should be repaired or replaced by the insurance company. The financial incentives, together with the inherently subjective nature of roof inspectors' opinions, have produced a climate of mistrust and suspicion.
Personal roof inspection is dangerous and unsatisfactory for at least the reasons described above. Aerial or satellite imaging of roof structures often produces low quality images, the equipment is subject to interference from cloud cover and trees, the cost is high, and it could take days or weeks to receive a report. Aerial imaging of roof structures using drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) requires piloting skills and a lengthy period of training and, currently, the use of drones is limited or prohibited by federal and/or local regulations. Moreover, drones are unstable in windy environments and, without stability, cannot capture the images or video of sufficient quality to be useful. Efforts at developing a remote roof inspection device have been unsuccessful because the problems of poor traction, poor durability, and inherent instability on steep surfaces and when crossing roof peaks have not been solved.